/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11721820]

as a radical centrist, i want to keep my political reading perfectly balanced, what are some non-embarrassing recent leftists books i could read to counterbalance all the right wing reading?

[Anonymous No.11721824]

Centrism being some weird amalgamation of both left and right is a terrible meme. Centrism is a political position with its own rationales for its own views.

[Anonymous No.11721829]

>>11721824
how can you measure the center and situate yourself without first establishing the extremes?

[Anonymous No.11721846]

>>11721820
Centrism isn't a thing.
Center on what issues? Where? When?

[Anonymous No.11721853]

>>11721820
radical centrists need to destroy their ideology, so zizek is a given

[Anonymous No.11721857]

What the FUCK is centrism guys?!?!?!

[Anonymous No.11721864]

>>11721853
Why do leftists think "ideology" is everything but their own ideology?

[Anonymous No.11721869]

>>11721846
You take the furthest left wing opinion on a certain issue at a single point in time and the same with the right. You create a 10 point scale with all the opinions inbetween and choose the 5th option. Do this for every possible political opinion and there you go.

[Anonymous No.11721875]

>>11721869
So you don't believe in universal suffrage, I guess.

[Anonymous No.11721879]

[Anonymous No.11721881]

>>11721875
If that is what the scale demands then so be it. I must not fail the scale.

[Anonymous No.11721882]

>>11721881
You're a funny guy.

[Anonymous No.11721892]

>>11721864
I've seen tankies claim Zizek was a CIA disinfo agent sent to poison the left, and liberals call him a crypto-fascist. He is against postmoderism, political correctness, and tolerance. If there is some "left ideology" out there, Zizek isn't a part of it.
Also, had you actually read him, you would know he doesn't even think ideology is dispensable, you can't escape it.

[Anonymous No.11721896]

>>11721875
Yes

[Anonymous No.11721900]

>>11721864
Lol who said that?

>>11721892
Oh please

[Anonymous No.11721902]

>>11721896
Based and centre-pilled

[Anonymous No.11721906]

is Macron the only way brehs?

[Anonymous No.11721912]

>>11721892
>I've seen tankies claim Zizek was a CIA disinfo agent sent to poison the left, and liberals call him a crypto-fascist. He is against postmoderism, political correctness, and tolerance. If there is some "left ideology" out there
because a leftist would never try to literally murder another leftist for his ideas, that has never happened

how retarded are you? the left eating itself
every single time is literally a meme for a reason, the left represents the manifestation of political entropy, nothing more, nothing less

[Anonymous No.11721915]

>>11721900
>Lol who said that?
Plenty of marxists. "marxism is a science, not an ideology" and all of that nonsense.
Also that quote is literally retarded, there's nothing just about what he's describing.

[Anonymous No.11721920]

>>11721906

[Anonymous No.11721940]

>>11721915
Like who? marxists are very well aware than they are following an ideology, at least more so than other adherents

>quote is literally retarded
Whatever you think of it, it affirms his alignment with communism.

[Anonymous No.11721949]

>>11721912
The right likes to joke about the left eating itself, but really what's going on is that the left puts other ideals above loyalty. Loyalty/authority/purity are considered subservient to harm/fairness in the moral structure of the left.

So if a politician on the left turns out to be corrupt, they lose standing. If a politician on the right turns out to be corrupt, the values of loyalty/authority get in the way of addressing it.

When this tendency goes bad on the left, it's called the left eating itself.
When the opposite tendency goes bad on the right, it's called the right putting party above country.

[Anonymous No.11721954]

>>11721940
>Like who?
Do you want a list of names of marxists that I've talked with?
>it affirms his alignment with communism
I didn't criticize it because it's not communist, I criticized it because it's a clear example of communists not understanding basic moral principles

>>11721949
>So if a politician on the left turns out to be corrupt, they lose standing
>what are tankies

[Anonymous No.11721969]

>>11721949
>but really what's going on is that the left puts other ideals above loyalty.
i'd buy that if you substitute "ideals" by "tactics" or "power", the left have no ideals when push comes to shove, only tactics

[Anonymous No.11721981]

>>11721969
No, the left honestly thinks differently from you, and trying to caricature them as "evil" ignores human nature.

[Anonymous No.11721990]

>>11721981
>No, the left honestly thinks differently from you
Yeah but they don't think differently in the terms that you've outlined, in fact, what you're criticizing him for is exactly what you're doing, just reversed.
The reason why the left eat itself isn't because they're oh-so-good and they put ideals before gaining power, it's because they don't see the differences within the left as minimal.

[Anonymous No.11721992]

>>11721954
>Do you want a list of names of marxists that I've talked with?
Yes? You didn't even mentioned what they actually said.

> it's a clear example of communists not understanding basic moral principles
Oh wow such pure ideology

[Anonymous No.11722005]

>>11721992
>You didn't even mentioned what they actually said.
I literally did. "Marxism is a science, not an ideology".
>Oh wow such pure ideology
Moral anti-realism - quite common among marxists - is really bad ideology, yes.

[Anonymous No.11722011]

>>11722005
>"Marxism is a science, not an ideology"
But not even marxists from the past thought that. And considering you are equally in knee-deep in pure ideology with that 'moral anti-realism' shit, I actually do want to know the exact quote from the exact people you met.

[Anonymous No.11722015]

>>11722011
>what's going on is that the left puts other ideals above loyalty.
the left cares about ideals more than anybody
>> it's a clear example of communists not understanding basic moral principles
>Oh wow such pure ideology
but ideals don't exist at all! it's all spooky ideology!

top kek

[Anonymous No.11722021]

>>11722015
Who are you quoting?
>but ideals don't exist at all! it's all spooky ideology!
Why are you confusing Zizek's pure ideology with Striner's spook? Stop seething and give a proper argument.

[Anonymous No.11722023]

>>11721940
Althusser

[Anonymous No.11722024]

>>11722011
>But not even marxists from the past thought that
Why lie? Because you can't be so ignorant that you don't know marxism was called a science by its proponents so often that it literally gave Popper inspiration for his idea of falsifiability.
>pure ideology with that 'moral anti-realism' shit,ù
Do you subscribe to moral anti-realism or not? If you do, then yes, you subscribe to really bad philosophy.
If you don't, then how is my disagreement with your position "pure ideology" ?

[Anonymous No.11722028]

>>11721820
jusr read Ellul, Capital, Baud and skim Adorno and Focault but seriously forget everything Focault says that’s not useful to you the continentals are psyonic hyper weapon the CIA-Mossad invented to crash the educational system (not joking, i refuse to explain)

[Anonymous No.11722044]

>>11722024
>Popper inspiration for his idea of falsifiability.
But those were based on the psudeo-science of humanities shit like psycho-anaylsis and sociology and things like that. Not anti-marxism. Again still no clear examples given.

>then how is my disagreement with your position "pure ideology"
Do you even know what pure ideology is? Your outcry of communists not understanding basic moral principles reveals that you don't even see how your ideology defines your moral principles

[Anonymous No.11722057]

>>11722044
>were based on the psudeo-science of humanities shit like psycho-anaylsis and sociology
No, Popper explicitly talks separately about psychoanalysis and Marxism. His criticism of Marxism as pseudoscience comes out of stuff that is characteristic of marxism and this criticism was only born because lots of the proponents of Marx called that ideology a science. You can literally just google "science of Marxism".
>Your outcry of communists not understanding basic moral principles reveals that you don't even see how your ideology defines your moral principles
My moral principles outlined my ideology so you've got causation backwards. My outcry of communists not understanding basic moral principles comes out of the preponderance of moral-antirealists among marxists and of really poor thought-out normative theories among those few that are moral realists. The criticism of their morals comes from ethics, not politics.

[Anonymous No.11722062]

>>11722024
>Why lie? Because you can't be so ignorant that you don't know marxism was called a science by its proponents so often that it literally gave Popper inspiration for his idea of falsifiability.
to be fair to leftists, "Wissenschaft" has not the same connotations as new atheist enlightened science and it's more on the lines of "systematic knowledge" than on the lines of "pure empiricism"

they are still wrong and a joke but for different reasons

[Anonymous No.11722068]

so are you guys going to recommend me a non-embarrassing recent left wing book or just bicker about irrelevant shit?

[Anonymous No.11722087]

>>11722057
>"science of Marxism"
So what? Not all marxists are Leninist. And whatever criticism Popper had of marxism was also directed to humanities in general and eventually led to the clear separation of science and humanities.

>The criticism of their morals comes from ethics, not politics.
Considering how you automatically assume marxists are moral-antirealists and that makes it bad with no explanation I would say yes, your ideology outlines moral principles. At best you can say that your morality is completely alien to marxists.

[Anonymous No.11722094]

>>11722068
book's are for fag's

[Anonymous No.11722097]

>>11722068
Towards a new socialism I guess.

[Anonymous No.11722099]

>>11722087
>So what? Not all marxists are Leninist
So we went from "no marxists" to "not all marxists". Good enough I guess. Also, leninists are probably the biggest subgroup of marxists.
>Considering how you automatically assume marxists are moral-antirealists
Why lie, everyone can just go back and see how I said that the majority of them subscribe to that but there are still moral realists among them.
>and that makes it bad with no explanation
Do I have to explain why anti-realism is not only false but bad if moral-realism is true? Really?

[Anonymous No.11722100]

>>11722068
Post-Capitalism by Paul Mason

[Anonymous No.11722103]

>>11722100
>Mason argues that from the ashes of the global financial crisis, we have the chance to create a more socially just and sustainable global economy.
top kek

[Anonymous No.11722107]

>'radical' centrist

What you really mean is status quo bitch.

[Anonymous No.11722120]

>>11722099
>So we went from "no marxists" to "not all marxists".
Lol I initially said no old marxists said that, having a essay written by some leninists in 1993 doesn't undermine my point and as someone already said, Science/Humanities distinction were not that clear in the past until Popper's empiricism shit.

>leninists are probably the biggest subgroup of marxists.
Not really, maybe the most successful ones. Again it is only written by some Leninist, it is stretch to say that all Leninist agree with it.

>why lie,
My bad I meant to add most into that statement then.

>Do I have to explain why anti-realism is not only false but bad if moral-realism is true? Really?
Yes? That it what I have been trying to ask you to do from the start.

[Anonymous No.11722124]

>>11721820
das kapital

[Anonymous No.11722131]

>>11722124
any good bilingual editions?

[Anonymous No.11722133]

>>11721864

>he does not know what idelogy actually means

[Anonymous No.11722135]

>>11722133
He likes eating from the trashcan

[Anonymous No.11722136]

>>11722131
just load up a public domain german edition and a public domain english edition side by side in your web browser

[Anonymous No.11722142]

>>11722120
>having a essay written by some leninists in 1993
wat
they were calling it a science, that's why Popper wrote about it. That Popper was wrong is irrelevant as to the fact that they were calling it a science.
>Yes? That it what I have been trying to ask you to do from the start.
Moral antirealism leads people to be "whatevers floats you boat maaaaan" when it comes to normative theories. Everything is ultimately just your opinion, just his opinion, you can't have any confrontation because it's ultimately not something that maps into reality.
If moral realism is true, this means that moral-antirealism facilitates acceptance of false moral theories and more importantly it makes valuable discussions impossible.

[Anonymous No.11722145]

>>11722133
>he's projecting

[Anonymous No.11722161]

>>11722142
>they were calling it a science, that's why Popper wrote about it
But science back then was not the same as the STEM we know today, a lot of it also consists of humanities shit.

And you have not shown how moral anti-realism is false, yet alone what is, only complaining that it is bad (no confrontation or discussion)

>If moral realism is true
>if

[Anonymous No.11722171]

>>11721820
>as a radical centrist, I'm right wing and think the left is embarrassing
checks out
>>11721846
I'm a centrism if we're talking Assyria in 1700 BC.

[Anonymous No.11722181]

>>11722161
>But science back
Science back then? Popper wrote this stuff in the mid 20th century. We're not talking about the 16th century.
>And you have not shown how moral anti-realism is false
You literally have never asked that of me. you've asked me how it's bad if moral realism is true. I've done that.
As to why moral-antirealism is the worse hypothesis of the two, it goes back to the fact that there are basically only two arguments in favor of moralantirealism (from queerness and from disagreement) that are really fucking bad, the first one is because it postulates something within the moral realist thesis that moral realists do not accept, the second one because disagreement on a subject isn't indicative of the fictitiousness of the subject itself. Moreover, moral anti-realists fail to mount a coherent explanation as to why their arguments against moral realism don't also apply to thing like epistemology itself and the very rationality they're using to supposedly refute moral-realism.

[Anonymous No.11722196]

>>11722103
Why top kek? It’s a good book. Also that byline is written in a misleading way, his system doesn’t require a financial crash. He just bases his analysis on the 2008 GFC.

[Anonymous No.11722209]

>>11722181
>Popper wrote this stuff in the mid 20th century.
Yes even back then the distinction between humanities and science was not that clear. And the term scientific socialism was coined way before that

>You literally have never asked that of me. you've asked me how it's bad if moral realism is true. I've done that.
You yourself said "Do I have to explain why anti-realism is not only false but bad if moral-realism is true?" Sharpen your grammar next time.

>As to why moral-antirealism is the worse hypothesis of the two,
Again you have not shown me that as well, only saying that you don't like the arguements or counter argument without describing what it is to begin with.

>against moral realism don't also apply to thing like epistemology itself and the very rationality they're using to supposedly refute moral-realism.
Why should it? Things being moral or not is different and separate from knowledge or reason.

[Anonymous No.11722223]

>>11722209
>And the term scientific socialism was coined way before that
And it was used in a way that was supposed to make it more akin to what we now call science, whether soft or hard doesn't matter, than mere philosophy.
>Sharpen your grammar next time.
The sentence means "am I supposed to explain why IF moral realism is true, moral anti-realism is not merely false but also morally bad". The grammar is fine.
>Again you have not shown me that as well,
I literally did in the parts of my post that you didn't quote (and probably didn't read).
>Why should it?
Because the objections to moral-realism can be taken as they are and used precisely in the same way against epistemological realism. If they're bad in the latter case, they're also bad in the former. That's enoch's argument.

Mate, am I supposed to literally sit you down and give you several lectures on meta-ethics and then delve on each and every aspect of the subject? If you're not getting what I'm talking about, despite me making it abundantly clear that I'm talking about certain arguments, certain authors and certain philosophical positions, I'm afraid there's no point in continuing this conversation because I'm giving for granted that you understand enough of the subject that I can talk with you without having to stop every single post and explain in detail what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.11722252]

>>11722024
>what is expressivism

[Anonymous No.11722267]

>>11722252
A really bad meta-ethical position that philosophers abandoned decades ago after Geach outlined one of the most blatant issues with it.
However, like nihilism or moral relativism, it's really popular among nobodies on the internet, so there's that.

[Anonymous No.11722274]

>>11721820
keep reading mark fisher and find a better way of expressing your political affiliation outside of left - center - right

there's plenty in his work to get you started

get reading, anon, and godspeed

[Anonymous No.11722276]

>>11722267
moral relativism is also quite spread in liberal circles, of course it's a weird version of relativism that only applies to tribes and people who live far away, never to nazis or people that live close to you

[Anonymous No.11722281]

>>11722223
>And it was used in a way that was supposed to make it more akin to what we now call science
Sure but it never was made out to be a hard science nor was it supposed to. Again Science back included most of humanities shit as well,

>The grammar is fine.
No it wasn't. "Not only X but Y if Z" implies that only Y is reliant on Z, not X. Made worse is that you constantly harp that moral anti-realism is false to begin with so i assumed such.

>I literally did in the parts of my post that you didn't quote (and probably didn't read).
Not an argument. You only mentioned their labels but not their contents. Either spell out what their arguments are or stop pretending you disputed anything.

>in the same way against epistemological realism.
And that is bad because?

>I can talk with you without having to stop every single post and explain in detail what I'm talking about.
Lol, the whole purpose you brought it up to begin with was to say that marxists are anti-moral realists and they are bad, but by the terrible way you argued about it under my probing, it seems like the debate between that issue is even not settled yet, despite you posturing otherwise.

Which brings me back to the point I made in>>11722087, that your ideology outlines your moral considering that you despise marxists instead of claiming your morality is very different from theirs.

[Anonymous No.11722290]

>>11722267
>autistic linguistic arguments

[Anonymous No.11722303]

>>11722281
>Again Science back included most of humanities shit as well,
They didn't mean it in a liberal arts fashion, they meant it "like sociology". Popper was objecting to that too.
>Either spell out what their arguments are or stop pretending you disputed anything.
Are you five? Can you google? I literally told you what the arguments are called? Do you want to be spoonfed everything?
>was to say that marxists are anti-moral realists and they are bad,
They mostly are and yes, it's a reason as to why it's bad.
>but by the terrible way you argued about it under my probing,
Wow, the probing of someone who literally knows nothing about the subject, so important.
>that your ideology outlines your moral considering that you despise marxists instead of claiming your morality is very different from theirs.
Moral disagreement aren't simply scientific disagreement, you moron. If someone says that it's fine to rape babies and in fact we should all do that, do you merely say "well we just disagree on this one thing"? No, you despise them.
>>11722290
Yes, expressivism is precisely autistic (as in bad) linguistic arguments.

[Anonymous No.11722328]

>>11722303
>They didn't mean it in a liberal arts fashion, they meant it "like sociology"
Lol repeating yourself is not an argument. Already anons like>>11722062 have told you about the distinction.

>Can you google? I literally told you what the arguments are called? Do you want to be spoonfed everything?
Lol you are the one making the argument not me. Must I help you argue against me?

>They mostly are and yes, it's a reason as to why it's bad.
Not only is this not an argument but just you repeating yourself

>Wow, the probing of someone who literally knows nothing about the subject, so important.
insulting and undermining me is still not an argument.

>do you merely say "well we just disagree on this one thing"? No, you despise them.
Yes I do? I would only despise them if they turn out to be hypocrites about it like "Hey everyone let's rape every babies except mine."

[Anonymous No.11722333]

>>11721920
In support of this superficial meme; the centrist must derive his ideas from the ends of the spectrum. In other words, she is conscripted in ideology even more than the ends. She has no new ideas, just the bondage of ideology. In a hegelian way, they have not formed any attitudes on an ideology besides a disillusionment with it. Ironically, they are entrenched in it.

Woah, I didnt know I had that to say until I typed it.

[Anonymous No.11722338]

>>11722333
sounds like a bunch of commie gobbledygook

[Anonymous No.11722341]

>>11721820
critical theory isn't really anti-right as much as it is anti-pragmatism

[Anonymous No.11722348]

>>11722328
>Lol you are the one making the argument not me
I already made the argument, do I need to restate it quickly?
Fine: the only arguments in favor of antirealism are basically two bad arguments, from queerness and from disagreement, the reasons as to why they're bad are outlined earlier. Moreover, if moral-antirealism is successful, it's also successful against "epistemological realism" (again, for reasons outlined earlier), which kinda makes it impossible for those arguments to refute anything else given that you need that in order to argue for everything else.
>Yes I do? I would only despise them
So, let me get this right, you don't despise someone that thinks it's ok to rape kids and that we should all rape kids, and in fact whenever he can do it he does rape kids.
You don't despise this person.
Ok. If I had a doubt about your intellectual honesty it's completely gone now.

[Anonymous No.11722353]

all roads lead to rome

[Anonymous No.11722352]

>>11721875
He believes in an insulating layer of educated elites who get elected by the plebs, and then choose the real executives (who are, by the way, fused with the legislative). The plebs will be satisfied with less actual power so long as we maintain the dignified elements of state.

[Anonymous No.11722383]

>>11722348
>basically two bad arguments, from queerness and from disagreement, the reasons as to why they're bad are outlined earlier. Moreover, if moral-antirealism is successful, it's also successful against "epistemological realism" (again, for reasons outlined earlier), which kinda makes it impossible for those arguments to refute anything else given that you need that in order to argue for everything else.
Lol you have just only repeated yourself! I already asked what the contents of both arguments and comparisons are and how they are bad and you still have provided as such. Still not an argument, only your opinions on why moral-antirealism is bad.

>and in fact whenever he can do it he does rape kids.
Yes and? How is that bad?

>your intellectual honesty it's completely gone now
Well the feeling is mutual since you constantly have no arguments

[Anonymous No.11722389]

>>11721906
Nope, he’s a useless piece of shit and nothing more than a liberal.

[Anonymous No.11722400]

>>11722383
>what the contents of both arguments and comparisons are
And I already told you to look them up, given that I didn't just mention them in passing, I literally told you what they're called. I'm not getting payed to teach you.
>Still not an argument
Yes, it's an argument, unlike the totality of zero arguments you've brought to prove when moral anti-realism to be true.
>How is that bad?
Dunno lol.

[Anonymous No.11722413]

>>11722400
I did and I still don't see how your opinions are correct, it is almost as if you have to articulate them...

>you've brought to prove when moral anti-realism to be true.
But I have not made any statement on whether it is true or not? Are you even keep tracking of the argument?

>Dunno lol.
Then why did you try to bait me by pearl clutching? If anything your example is really stupid since child fuckers are never logically consistent about their arguements. What a non-argument.

[Anonymous No.11722418]

>>11721820
Capital in the 21st century by Thomas Piketty.

[Anonymous No.11722452]

>>11722418
isn't that about numbers and stuff?

[Anonymous No.11722495]

>>11722413
>I did and I still don't see how your opinions are correct, it is almost as if you have to articulate them...
It's not an opinion, it's an argument, I gave you an argument that refutes the argument from disagreement. The problem is that you're not actually here to discuss, you're here to not make any point and be intellectually dishonest.
>But I have not made any statement on whether it is true or not?
lmao dude I don't have any positions on anything this way I don't have to actually do anything, cool tactic brah.
>Then why did you try to bait me by pearl clutching?
I do know, you cretin, I was just laughing at your attempt at edginess. The argument was aimed at seeing if there's barely any trace of honesty in you but there isn't so you can just fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11722528]

>>11722068
The Next Revolution by Bookchin
Also get out of the left-center-right bullshit, it's not real and it clouds reality.

[Anonymous No.11722578]

>>11722068
Poor Economics (look into global poverty)
Progress and Poverty (look into geolibertarianism)

[Anonymous No.11722579]

>>11722495
>I gave you an argument that refutes the argument from disagreement.
But you did not at all. You have not what the counter arguments are and why are they bad. Again repeating yourself is not an arguement

>lmao dude I don't have any positions on anything this way I don't have to actually do anything, cool tactic brah.
I do actually have positions in this arguement but none of them have to do with this moral anti-realism shit. I am sorry you are too much of a brainlet to find my positions, if you want I can explain them again very clearly unlike you.

>I was just laughing at your attempt at edginess.
How is not hating child rapist not edgy? I already agreed that i don't argee with them or their methods at all Are you actually going to argue honestly or just resort to your hurt fee-fees :(?

[Anonymous No.11722833]

>>11721879
The way to true Chaddom is to be infinitely extreme in all directions at the same time. I believe that 4chan is, in this respect, an uberchad gestalt.

[Anonymous No.11722862]

>>11722333
>She
You lost me there bud

[Anonymous No.11723097]

>>11722578
Add "The Limits to Growth".

It is one of the most influential works on sustainability and it's forecasts have been mostly vindicated.

[Anonymous No.11723102]

>>11722833
>I believe that 4chan is, in this respect, an uberchad gestalt.
>anons are chads
lets not kid ourselves

[Anonymous No.11723275]

>>11721900
OH dude he said a bad word, that's epic

[Anonymous No.11723866]

>>11721824
some good lectures by kaplan on yt

[Anonymous No.11724669]

>>11721857
A meme.

[Anonymous No.11724684]

>>11721857

[Anonymous No.11724691]

>>11721820
Empire, Capitalism and Schizo series

[Anonymous No.11724738]

>>11724684
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.11724756]

>>11721906
>macron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3kKRhDx_Kc

[Anonymous No.11726078]

>>11722528
>Also get out of the left-center-right bullshit, it's not real and it clouds reality.
Why should I accept this. What about the concept of left-center-right is clouding my reality?

[Anonymous No.11726305]

>tfw have a mixture of far right, far left, authoritarian, libertarian, traditionalist, and progressive ideals
What does that make me, anons

[Anonymous No.11726388]

>>11721820
I know OCD is fucked (believe me, I would know), but why the fuck do you think reading ideologies that differ from yours would make you more supportive of your own? Even if you had read right-wing books your entire life, the posterior reading of leftist books in the same amount wouldn't make you centrist, you would just eventually pend towards one of them.

[Anonymous No.11726499]

>>11726078
It isn't holisitc and groups things together for the sake of simplicity but you shouldn't be simplifying politics. It's how you get dumb shit like centrists equating stalinism and fascism as basically the same thing, when all they have in common is their totalitarianism. Or just general horseshoe theory garbage. If we were to go with the general category of left that would include everything from the green party to anarchism to maoism and those are all SO very different that it basically makes the term useless. And the same goes for the right with ancap being paired up with fascism and monarchism. Do these things have some similarities? Yeah. But you can literally find similarities between pretty much ANY political ideology so the basic left-center-right grouping that exists is p much completely arbitrary and overly simplistic. It's how you had people on the right calling obama a totalitarian asshat when he was in office and now you have people on the left now calling trump actually hitler, because politics has been so simplified and dumbed down that people don't know what the actual content of any of these political ideologies is. They just see something they disagree with so OBVIOUSLY that means that that person or idea is the exact opposite of them or they just view it as BAD THING. It's retarded.

[Anonymous No.11726504]

>>11726305
A nazi

[Anonymous No.11726509]

>>11726078
because it's retarded to assume that all of politics can be fit onto a fucking line, that's all that needs to be said

[Anonymous No.11726736]

>>11721820
>as a radical centrist

[Anonymous No.11726747]

>>11721820
>as a radical centrist

keked and stopped reading

[Anonymous No.11726773]

>>11726499
I agree with you on a lot of this, but isn't left and right scaling about private and public ownership at its core? All of your examples still fit on a right-center-left scale in this case. With ancaps, fascists, monarchists on the right side of the scale because of their similarities in support of private ownership. And maoists, anarchists, stalinists on the left because of their similarities in public ownership.

[Anonymous No.11726806]

>>11722068

[Anonymous No.11726816]

>>11721981
Damn... I can only imagine how profound Haidt's insights are in this book.

[Anonymous No.11726825]

>>11721820
>i radically choose to have no opinion whatsoever

[Anonymous No.11726858]

>>11726773
Well this goes back to while they may have some similarities (in this case their views on private/public ownership) it is highly reductionist to group them together on this one axis. All of these ideologies can vary immensely in just HOW they want to attain the goals of making ownership more private or public. Like with maoism it would try and use a vanguard party to forcefully take control of any private property and hand its control over to the party (which they would view as it now being public property) but anarchists are generally completely against the idea of even using a vanguard and view that as being highly authoritarian. Or if you look at fascism (I'll be using the mussolini model for this example) is a big proponent of corporatism which utilizes private property to a great extent is completely at odds with the theories of ancaps in that corporations shouldn't (or couldn't) exist under ancapistan. So grouping these things together seems nonsensical, they are much too diverse for such a simple coupling as this. It's a fine way to try and start explaining politics to someone in grade school, but after that it's hogwash and we should embrace the complexities that are all encompassing in politics.

[Anonymous No.11726860]

>>11721829
the characteristics of the middle of a spectrum dont necessarily average the characteristics of the ends

[Anonymous No.11726916]

>>11722333
fuck the haters this is a nice post with a nice set of trips, based.
>>11722328
>>11722383
Stupid intellectually dishonest commie cuck

[Anonymous No.11726919]

>>11722579
you lost btw

[Anonymous No.11726921]

>>11721881
So you believe in exterminating just half of all black people? Gotcha.

[Anonymous No.11726924]

>>11724738
[2]

[Anonymous No.11726928]

>>11726305
very confused

[Anonymous No.11726933]

>>11721906
>neoliberalism
>"radical centrism"

Actual radical centrism is something like vague, tradition-affirming socialist nationalism (in the sense of socialism within a nation, not Nazi insanity.) Basically the societies of non-affiliated third world countries (India, Thailand, etc.)

Macrons' "radical centrism" is western jingoistic energy farming. Destroy nature for the sake of shareholder confidence and all that. Not centrist in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.11726937]

>>11726858
Are you not describing a standard political compass? Sounds like you're throwing the authoritarian/libertarian axis ontop of what I was describing as left and right, which is just a standard political compass.

[Anonymous No.11726977]

>>11726916
>>11726919
>replying to a dead conversation with your downvote comments
I can hear you seething from behind the screen

[Anonymous No.11727035]

>>11726937
A political compass is still reductionist and incapable of fully letting you know about the nuances of an ideology. Let's take primitivists for example, where exactly would they fall on the compass? Would they be somewhere down by the libertarians? But what about the types of primitivists who believe in strict hierarchy or religious or patriarchal domination? Wouldn't returning to a "simpler" time mean ending capitalism since that didn't exist until a couple of centuries ago? But there are plenty of people who feel like capitalism has always existed so in their specific view of primitivism there would still be capitalism. And you can do this same sort of thing with things like transhumanism. And you might be thinking well we could just add another axis. But that would still be unhelpful, there are plenty of people who subscribe as being highly authoritarian communists or stalinists but they support gay rights or abortion, but these are social issues that the original creators of those ideologies would never have been okay with does that mean these new people can't be of those ideologies? Of course not, these are just new values added on top of it that add more nuance. Not all fascists are racist (though most of them certainly are) and so automatically labeling anyone who is fascist as being a racist is reductionist and it also leads to extremely dumb hot takes by liberals and leftists that anyone who is racist is somehow also a fascist, but it's extremely easy for anyone of any ideology regardless of what it is to also be racist. Or how about how much religious tradition is intertwined with the government, you could have a person who wants a theologically christian communist nation just as easily as you could have someone who wants an atheist fascist state. And this nuance is only further increased when you take into account how many different religions there are and how many different sects they all have. No matter how many axes you add it will never be enough to give you a remotely holistic picture. And again using stuff like the political line of left-center-right can be helpful for people in grade school, and a political compass can help people who are in middle and high school, but after that it's fucking useless and we should just accept that these aren't things that can be easily or appropriately grouped together and that shouldn't scare us or make us confused, we should embrace the complexity and try and understand it for what it truly is not this hollow facade of half baked truths.

[Anonymous No.11727073]

>>11721857
>What the FUCK is centrism guys?!?!?!
classical liberals (most republicans) and social liberals (most democrats).

[Anonymous No.11727399]

>>11727073
>republicans
>classical liberals

Republicans are capitalist nationalists nigger, they're about socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor, alongside a healthy dose of invading foreign countries on shaky grounds.
I don't necessary think any one political party out there is objectively bad, but damn, the Republicans come close. Even right-wing identitarian parties in Europe at least have more reasonable economic policies.

[Anonymous No.11727485]

>>11721820
if you want to be a radical centrist, then you don't need to read books. all you really need to do is b urself and have pure, untainted based in your instincts and not motivated by ideology.

[Anonymous No.11727586]

>>11721820
Cringest post I've read today.

[Anonymous No.11727604]

Centrism is a fucking meme
Stalin was a centrist in his circumstances

[Anonymous No.11727607]

>>11727604
and that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.11727677]

>>11727604
He was a right communist than a left communist. He never took a concilliatory approach.

[Anonymous No.11727723]

Postcapitalism by Paul Mason
Economics: The User's Guide by Ha-joon Chang
The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazucatto
The Global Minotaur by Yanis Varoufakis
Living in the End Times by Slavoj Zizek

[Anonymous No.11727761]

>>11724756
>disrespecting the next napoleon

[Anonymous No.11727887]

>>11726921
Nobody is trying to exterminate black people, I'm just sick of paying for our government to clean up their mess and house them. I'd be happy to give them their own chunk of America that they can be sovereign over if it means getting out cities back and not having to deal with their crime. Get out of here with that bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11727895]

>>11727399
You need to tone it down with the occupy Democrat memes. Your libshit is showing.

[Anonymous No.11728217]

>>11727723
based on-topic poster, is living on the end of times worth getting if you have been following Zizek or is it just copy/pasting from his previous works?

[Anonymous No.11728452]

mark fisher is a pseudo just like david harvey
read history of economics brainlets

[Anonymous No.11728454]

>>11721875
I don't. It's stupid.

[Anonymous No.11728466]

>>11721820

[Anonymous No.11728482]

>>11721857
Classical liberals closer to the left or social liberals closer to the right.

[Anonymous No.11728489]

>>11721892
>He is against postmoderism
probably because his IQ is too low
>>11721906
based, hopes he gives union members helicopter rides
>forget everything Focault says that’s not useful to you
t. brainlet
>>11722068
naomi klein :^)
jk , jacque derrida
>>11722452
yes, better read its academic responses, cant paste link here, blame board, look up brad delong's review
>>11726773
>but isn't left and right scaling about private and public ownership at its core?
thats what (((intellectuals ))) want you to think
>>11726933
thats exaggeration, hes been wayy too soft on the unions, shouldve gassed em desu
>Economics: The User's Guide by Ha-joon Chang
pseud detected

[Anonymous No.11728490]

>>11722862
Based

[Anonymous No.11728517]

>>11721875
Universal suffrage is an idea so self-evidently bad that you'd have to have pretty much constant brain washing to actually support it

[Anonymous No.11728534]

>>11722833
we're chads on the internet nigger. In 20 years when sex happens online by way of mastubation devices and the transport of seminal fluid through tubes to your recipient well all be chad

[Anonymous No.11728568]

>>11728452
>reads history of economics
>calls other people brainlets

[Anonymous No.11728616]

The Modern World-System Series
On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century
The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century
Inequality: What Can Be Done?
Capital in the Twenty-First Century
Our Political Nature: The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us
Debt: The First 5,000 Years
The History of White People
The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World
The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy

[Anonymous No.11728629]

>>11721820
>as a radical centrist, i want to keep my political reading perfectly balanced

since when is it okay to talk like this?

[Anonymous No.11728647]

Would you say you're looking for a third way?

[Anonymous No.11728682]

>>11721820
>as a radical centrist...
you mean an intellectual coward with no convictions

[Anonymous No.11730062]

>>11721869
So are all centrists a 3 on the kinsey scale?

[Anonymous No.11730088]

>>11721820
Black Flame: the Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarcho Syndicalism by Lucien van Der Well is excellent

[Anonymous No.11730334]

Just read Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Ho Chi Mihn and Kim Il Sung. Don't waste your time with these wierd post-modernist culture critiques.

[Anonymous No.11730339]

>>11721892
Zizek is a meme philosopher and and a terrible marxist, if he even is at all. Don't bother with him if you want to learn anything about marxism.

[Anonymous No.11730472]

>>11721857
Sheer inertia.

[Anonymous No.11730502]

I haven't read a single post in this thread and it already makes me want to kill myself. Can't wait for the nuclear hell to blow out everyone of you, disgusting spergs and nobodys larping as smarts.

[Anonymous No.11730511]

>>11730502

[Anonymous No.11730901]

>>11730502
I haven't read a single post yet I'm this mad. I keep waking up and getting out of bed just to be mad at an illusion and raising my blood pressure which will lead to my early death, as a 25 year old virgin. It's not fair.

[Anonymous No.11731808]

>>11721906
>>11726933
Macron is based and blackpilled just like Merkel, Bill Gates, CIA, Jeff Bezos etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.11732184]

This thread is pathetic.
/lit/ seems to be flooded with imbeciles who place to high a value on arbitrary ideological concepts.
Reality is much more complex than anything we could express in language. Enjoy your pseud intellectual meme debates about who's dogma is more convincing to the normie plebs but never forget that by restricting yourself to this pointless mental exercise you place boundaries on your own.
I don't see myself as centrist, left or right. Brainlets

[Anonymous No.11732189]

>>11732184
>I don't see myself as centrist, left or right. Brainlets

[Anonymous No.11732332]

>>11727895
Libshit? What is this? High school? I'm sorry if calling out the Republicans for what they are - a bunch of thankless klepocrats - hurts your feelings. Reality doesn't care about the arbitrary whims of American political sensibilities.

[Anonymous No.11732860]

>>11732332
I don't like establishment Republicans, but they aren't nationalists in any sense of the word. Until Trump, you were considered a bad Republican if you weren't for "free trade" (read exporting jobs to countries with VAT on our goods while having no tariffs or VAT on theirs). I'm saying you need to calm down with the occupy Democrat memes because you don't actually understand the bulk of the Republican party. They are not some sort of "capitalist nationalism" party, as much as they are globalist neo-liberals economically, while being war mongers in defense of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. There is no ultimate value differences between Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton. Their end goal is the same, a more perfect realization of liberalism, they just look to get there in a different fashion. They are Democrats driving the speed limit, that is it.

[Anonymous No.11733231]

>>11721853
Ironically Zizek is himself a radical centrist when it comes to criticizing the right wing and the left wing at the same time.

[Anonymous No.11733232]

>>11722578
>>11723097
Nobody cared about my on-topic posts.

[Anonymous No.11733267]

>Radical Centrist
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.11733271]

>>11733267

[Anonymous No.11733306]

>>11732184
Imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.11733317]

>>11733231
>critiquing leftists makes you not a leftist
By that definition there will be no leftists left

[Anonymous No.11733943]

>>11727723
>Economics: The User's Guide by Ha-joon Chang
pseud

[Anonymous No.11734185]

>>11727399
This is the way we work it in Alabama. Privilege and massive government funded incentives for the wealthy and politically connected (at the expense, and disadvantage, of the average taxpayer). For the middle and the poor? Yer on your own, you heathen nasty shits. Shut up and be happy you get $10 an hour, get back to work.
This is one reason why many conservatives are monarchist. We want to make sure that we, and out bloodline, stay at the top, and no one else can get there.
That's also the reason that the Supreme court is being stacked with activist conservative judges these days. That's where laws are made.
>t; christian, conservative, republican, inherited wealth, and working actively with the republican party to keep it that way. We have a private club, and y'alls not invited.

[Anonymous No.11734232]

>>11734185
You have the fucking gall to call the "conservative" judges activist when Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan are on there? Get the fuck out of here you dishonest faggot. What the fuck have the "activist" conservative judges conserved in the last 30 years. Certainly they aren't conserving the moral values of the previous society, they aren't conserving the people demographically, they aren't conserving the economic system or the environment, what the fuck are your "activist" conservative judges active in conserving you fucking moron?

[Anonymous No.11734246]

>>11734232
There's no point. Most Americans are retarded and historically. They think Trump is conservative. On both sides of the spectrum.

[Anonymous No.11734248]

>>11726305
ignorant

[Anonymous No.11734253]

>>11734246
historically illiterate*

[Anonymous No.11734273]

>non-embarrassing
>to counterbalance all the right wing reading

Oops.

Hardt and Negri's joint works, starting with Empire; The Comming Insurrection; Capitalism and the Politics of Resignation by Kirsch and Benson; Politics of Divination by Joshua Ramey; Traffic Jams... by David Cole

[Anonymous No.11734311]

>>11721820
>as a radical centrist
>counterbalance all the right wing reading
Holy shit, the meme is true. "Radical centrists" are just right-wingers in denial.

[Anonymous No.11734326]

>>11724756
wtf

[Anonymous No.11734943]

>>11727723
as much as i think mason is a top lad postcapitalism is wildly speculative at best

ha joon chang is pretty entry level

the others are all good

[Anonymous No.11734949]

>>11721820
varoufakis - adults in the room

he BTFOs the centrists at the EU and IMF in it

[Anonymous No.11735063]

Radical centrism is THE meme ideology
for me, it's the alt-centre

[Anonymous No.11735064]

>>11734273
>Tiqqun
LMFAO, a bunch of debordian idiots who have been announcing "the coming insurrection" since 2007
>>11721820
>Recent leftist
>non-embarassing
You're in for a rough time. Just read Marx (capital vol 1, 18 brumaire, critique of political economy) and Luxembourg (accumulation of capital). In general, avoid newer leftist, they tend to be uninsightful at best and downright moronic at worst (that's it if you manage to get past the unnecessarly tedious jargon) and they write for a readership that has rarely engaged with marxs thought and whose politics consist of "lol gabitalism sux". Old marxist are consinstently better, more insightful, etc.
They're both most likely wrong, but at least old marxist will make you a thinken'
>>11721824
>>11721857
Outside of leftist internet memetical iconography, in which "centrist" is a guy who thinks he's very wise but he actually is a fascist because he doesn't want to kill the bougie, Centrism doesn't exist, because position which are called "centrist", due to a confusion created by the persistance in the noosphere of very antiquate political distinctions, doesn't excape (as a whole) the left/right dichotomy. It's more of a political coordinate than anything. For further reading Bobbio's left and right: the significance of a political distiction.
>>11721864
Because of the original Marxist definition of ideology which is the system of ideas used by the current ruling class to justify themselves to themselves and their subordinates, this notion is obviously opposed with HM/DM which claims to understand reality as it is.
>>11721906
This is the kind of retard I was talking about before
>>11721906
He is too much of a realpolitik minded for my liking, still better than the other candidates tho
>>11727723
>Mazucatto
Hack
>Varoufakis
Hack
>>11722418
This is pretty good, well-argued, sourced. etc, but I wouldn't call him "leftist" in that he isn't a Marxist but a normal economist.

[Anonymous No.11735070]

>>11735064
don't*

[Anonymous No.11735210]

>>11721820
gender trouble

[Anonymous No.11735222]

gender trouble
i bet you can't refute it, retard

[Anonymous No.11735816]

>>11734185
>t; christian, conservative, republican, inherited wealth, and working actively with the republican party to keep it that way. We have a private club, and y'alls not invited.
Alright, you've peaked my interest. Why do you want this?

[Anonymous No.11737225]

>>11733317
there aren't, leftism isn't a stable position, just pure political entropy